Democratic reformers often assert that more citizen activism is the best remedy for local governments that are unresponsive to public wishes and cater to elite preferences. The thinking goes that if only residents would take advantage of the small-scale opportunities for direct engagement that localities have to offer, they could counter elite influence and promote policy that better reflects majority preferences. Others, however, see a darker side to such activism. Citizens can use their influence to promote exclusion, maintain residential segregation, or engage in “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) behavior. Activism can be used by the already privileged to magnify their advantages, and as a result, we might be better off if we restrict residents’ ability to use non-electoral participation to lobby the government.
This leads to a central question: Will more activism improve democracy and lead to more responsive government, or will it exacerbate existing problems? In my new book, Activism, Majority Rule, and Local Democracy, I explore this question by interviewing activists in San Diego, California, analyzing how they go about trying to influence local policy and identifying their effect on democratic practices.
Answering this question requires identifying the different mechanisms of public influence over government. We usually think about public influence in a democracy as being of one piece, usually in terms of popular majorities influencing government. This is frequently contrasted to “elite” influence: government either listens to the majority of the public or a small elite.
This binary, however, mischaracterizes how democracies actually work. We have institutions designed to allow public majorities to influence policy, the most recognizable of which are elections. But we also allow for subsets of the population to influence government as well. This could be a group of elites, but it could also just be average people trying to influence policies they care about (“activists” for short). Thus, there are two distinct paths of influence. The first is through majoritarian institutions, such as candidate elections or ballot initiatives, that allow for the public-at-large to influence policy (at least when they work well). The second is through activism, which allows groups of individuals with common goals to advocate for preferred policies.
The problem is that activism is usually not majoritarian, meaning it won’t lead to policy that reflects majority preferences even if the activists are “average people.” When residents become activists, they will inevitably specialize in a handful of issues, as there are too many issues and only so much time. They will not do this randomly, but rather focus on issues that have the biggest impact on their lives or the ones they care most about. As a result, the set of activists on any given issue will likely be biased: because interest in issues is not randomly distributed, when people self-select into groups based on interest, the resulting set of activists will be different than the public at large. Even if all residents were politically active, on any given issue, the set of activists will exhibit biases and likely advocate for policies different than what the majority prefers. This isn’t necessarily true for all issues—it’s possible that on some issues activists will promote policies the majority agrees with—but because activists are a self-selected subset of the public, on many issues they will act against majority preferences.
As a consequence, activism and majority rule are often in tension. We commonly understand activism as an alternative means for “the public” to get the policies they want, but rather than contributing to majority rule, activism can undermine it. Widespread activism may push the government away from adopting policies the majority prefers.
Both majority rule and activism have their merits. The majority of the public should be able to have their preferences reflected in what the government does, especially when they have clear and defined beliefs. But activism is also beneficial even if it promotes policies that are countermajoritarian. It allows individuals to have a direct say on the issues they care most about, which may increase satisfaction with government. It can also build civic skills, increase internal efficacy, and develop a greater appreciation for democratic processes. Activists are often more knowledgeable than the average resident, and in some circumstances may advocate for wiser policies than a largely uninformed majority.
A healthy democracy should have a measure of majority rule as well as extensive activism. Thus, it’s not a matter of deciding which one is better, but rather how to incorporate both into local practice and manage the tension between them. The first step is to decide when majorities should be able to obtain the policies they prefer. I posit three conditions that should lead to majority rule: when a large segment of the public cares about an issue, has sufficient knowledge about it, and has a defined preference. These three conditions are not often present. For example, there are some issues that most people care little about, and other issues where most people haven’t given the issue much thought and thus don’t have a defined preference as to what should be done. On these issues, it is appropriate for activists to influence policy even if they do not represent the majority opinion.
The problem is not that we have too much or too little activism, but that we have a misconception of the role that activism performs in local democracy. We often think about activism as a complement to majority rule, allowing public majorities to strengthen their influence over policy. Most people think that widespread activism by average citizens, coupled with responsive officials, will lead to majority rule. But it will not. Rather, it will lead to rule by activists. This misconception has negative consequences, as it prevents us from addressing the tension between activism and majority rule and leads to unproductive debates over whether activists are representative of the public. We should accept that activists are not proxies for the public-at-large, and focus on the more important question, which is what should be done to address public problems.
Whether we want more activism is dependent on what we are hoping to accomplish. If we want citizens to develop civic skills or want those with intense preferences to have a greater say, then more activism is called for. Activism can also reduce inequalities if the newly active residents are from disadvantaged groups (although privileged groups often are in a better position to exploit participatory opportunities). If, on the other hand, we want policy to better reflect majority preferences, then we should limit activism by making it more difficult to engage in effective non-electoral participation. Viewing increased activism as a path towards majority rule is misguided; it will enhance the influence of activists, but that’s not majority rule. Government should be responsive to the public, but whether it should be responsive to majority opinion or activists is an open question, one that depends on our goals and preferences.
Brian E. Adams is a Professor in the Political Science Department at San Diego State University.
